Tom Cole

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to make a couple of points in response to my friend. First of all, there is much of what my friend has to say that I agree with. This is not the preferred process of the Appropriations Committee on either side of the aisle in this Chamber. Indeed, we tried to bring--and did bring--bill after bill after bill to this floor to avoid this very end. The responsibility here lies with the leadership of the United States Senate, which did not bring a single appropriations bill to the floor. When they won't pick up and pass a bill, we can't go to conference, and we are left to fund the government in the very final days. Now, I don't think my friend meant to suggest this, but the idea that only Republicans were involved in drafting this is just simply not the case. This bill has to go through a Democratic Senate and go to a Democratic President. It cannot pass the Senate without Democratic support or even be taken up. It cannot go into law without the President's signing it into law. The reality is that the Democratic Senate and the administration have been involved in these negotiations at every level, over and over. Indeed, my friends have been involved in this as well in their capacity as ranking members on the Appropriations Committee or in the leadership capacity. This bill, of which I do not particularly like the process, is, indeed, bicameral and bipartisan in its substance. Again, I think my friend makes an excellent point in that this isn't the way to run the railroad, and we ought to work together; but I also will remind my friends that the last time they were in the majority they brought exactly two appropriations bills to the floor under closed rules. They never brought an appropriations bill here in their final year under an open process. We have done that seven times. We would have done it all 12 times, but we finally determined the United States Senate, under Democratic control, was never going to bring up an appropriations bill, at which point: Why waste the floor time, and why ask your Members to do the hard work and cast the votes? That is something that shouldn't happen again. I pledge to work with my friend, who I know does not want to see that happen again, to make sure that we fulfill our part of the process on this side of the House; and I think the new Senate will very likely do the same thing. I am hoping our colleague who is leaving this Chamber and heading there will help us in that. She has been a wise and able Member here, and I am sure she will be equally distinguished in the United States Senate. We look forward to improving the process--my friend is right about that--but the absence of passing this bill will shut down the government. I don't think that is something that either they or our friends in the Senate or in the administration want to do. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from the State of Washington (Ms. Herrera Beutler), my friend and distinguished colleague, for the purpose of a colloquy with the majority leader.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration for the fiscal year 2015 omnibus appropriations bill. The resolution makes in order a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on Appropriations that the House concur in the Senate amendment of H.R. 83 with an amendment consisting of the text of the FY 2015 omnibus appropriations bill. The rule provides 80 minutes of debate, 60 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. In addition, the rule provides the chair of the Committee on Appropriations the authority to insert any explanatory information. Finally, the rule provides same-day authority through December 12, as is customary at the end of session. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to this House the culmination of the Appropriations Committee's work for the fiscal year 2015. In this legislation, 11 of the 13 appropriations bills are fully conferenced and fully funded through the end of the fiscal year. However, the Homeland Security bill is funded under a temporary continuing resolution until February 27, 2015. Mr. Speaker, I carried the initial rule for consideration of the first two appropriations bills considered in the House back on April 30, 2014, and I believe the record of the House and the House Appropriations Committee has been good. We considered 7 out of 12 appropriations bills on the floor under an open process, considered 11 of 12 appropriations bills in committee. Contrast that to the Senate, which was unable to consider even a single appropriations bill on the floor. So I am proud, Mr. Speaker, of the work we have been able to accomplish. The omnibus legislation abides by all the terms set in the Ryan-Murray budget agreement, providing a top line funding level of $1.013 trillion. But at the same time, this legislation contains important policy provisions that prevent the government from reaching into the lives of ordinary American citizens, provisions like those which prevent the Army Corps of Engineers from regulating farm ponds and irrigation ditches, or provisions like those preventing the Federal Government from regulating the lead content in ammunition or fishing tackle. This bill maintains historic pro-life provisions and includes new ones, like requiring ObamaCare plans to disclose whether they provide abortion services, and countless others. At the same time, this omnibus enacts important commonsense priorities on the direction of this government. It cuts funding for the IRS by over $345 million. Indeed, the IRS has been cut by more than $1.2 billion since 2010. It prohibits the IRS from targeting groups for scrutiny based on their political beliefs. It cuts EPA funding for the fifth consecutive year, bringing staffing to the lowest level since 1989. It implements a government-wide prohibition on the painting of portraits. It makes commonsense decisions, like prohibiting funding for inappropriate videos or conferences that shouldn't be funded by taxpayers in times of surplus, much less in times of deficit. But this legislation doesn't just cut funding from programs. It takes those cuts and reallocates them to programs that are truly in need. For example, it provides $30 billion for the National Institutes of Health, an increase over funding from FY14, enhancing funding for Alzheimer's, cancer, and brain research. It funds the Gabriella Miller Kids First Research Act, a bill I authored with Gregg Harper and Eric Cantor, at $12.6 million, shifting those dollars from funding political conventions to research into pediatric diseases. It increases the health care and educational funding to some of our poorest and most needy constituents--Native Americans--and it provides funding to deal with crises like those associated with the outbreak of Ebola or the militant activity of ISIL, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. I could go on and on with all the good things included in this bill; however, I am sure others will speak to those items. I believe it is important to take stock in where we have come over the last 4 years. We have taken an annual budget deficit of $1.4 trillion and lowered it to $468 billion, still too high, but one of the most rapid, if not the most rapid, declines of the deficit in American history. We prevented additional burdens and regulations from being foisted upon the American people. Our work is certainly not done, however. One must always remember appropriations and appropriating is a process. The bureaucratic welfare state built by decades of Democratic control cannot be dismantled in a single blow; however, it can be reduced piece by piece, and this legislation does just that. Some of my friends will raise objections to the process, where we are left with a frustrating choice between the passage of a large omnibus bill to fund all government or a government shutdown. To my friends, I say that I agree with you, as do my fellow members of the Appropriations Committee. There are some things in this bill I disagree with and some, certainly, that I agree with; but I do believe that, under regular order, those with different points of views should be able to make their case to the entire House. The House has led by example in this regard. We considered seven different appropriations bills on this floor in an open amendment process, all of which were passed by bipartisan majorities. The House would have considered even more appropriations bills had the Senate been willing to consider even a single appropriations bill on the floor. In fact, the last time the Senate passed an individual appropriations bill was November 1, 2011, more than 3 years ago. Madam Speaker, this isn't the way to govern. I hope that in the next Congress the House will have a partner in the Senate, which is willing to consider individual appropriations bills in an open process so that we do not have to consider large omnibus packages without the opportunity for amendment. I believe we will, and I believe we will end up with a better product because of it. I am encouraged by the work of my friend, Chairman Rogers, and Ranking Member Nita Lowey, and I look forward to working with them and a new Senate next year to build upon the work we have done this year. Madam Speaker, I urge support for the rule and the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 776 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. As I reflect back on the debate today--and it is always a good exchange with my friend from New York--I want to reflect on some areas of agreement and disagreement. The agreement is we think, like our Democratic colleagues, this is not a good way to legislate. We do not like the process. We do not like to pass bills with multiple hundreds of pages and well over $1 trillion in spending and lots of policy riders. We prefer to legislate as we began this Congress--that is with an individual appropriations bill. I want to thank my chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), for the manner in which they got the process off and going this year, and I want to commend my friends on the other side of the aisle for participating. This House was moving appropriations bills under open rules with multiple debates and passing them, usually with bipartisan votes, in the way that this system should operate. That was not true in the United States Senate. That body, under Democratic leadership, never brought up a single appropriations bill. You simply can't operate the process if the other side of the Chamber, whose participation is constitutionally required, refuses to participate, refuses to bring bills to the floor. And that was done for political and, I would suggest, somewhat cynical calculations. It didn't work out very well in the end; it never does. Going through regular order, we all know, is the best way to operate. But we are here now because the Senate wouldn't do its job. The House did do its job and continued to do it until it was just painfully obvious that the Senate was never going to do anything at all. I have also listened to my friends and their concerns about a multitude of issues that are dealt with in this bill. They know we can avoid this next year by following regular order and going through the process, but there are two in particular that I want to address quickly. The first issue is campaign finance. I probably have a different view than most of my speakers in terms of what ought to be done, but they are absolutely right in terms of the process by which this has been arrived at. Now, I will point out this idea that there is not unlimited money in politics now is just simply not true. The people who have been penalized are the candidates and the political parties. There are plenty of third-party groups on both sides that spend enormous amounts of money, people who write substantially larger checks, and that is both liberals, conservatives, Democrats, and Republicans. This is actually a measure, I would argue, to try to allow the parties who are more transparent and more accountable and, frankly, usually more professional to have the resources to compete with some of the outside groups. Be that as it may, the substance of my friend's process objections are real. The other area is the Dodd-Frank area. Let me just say, that language was brought up under the separate legislation and considered; it was in Financial Services. So the idea it is being dropped in at the last minute is just not true. Let me finish with two points. First, there is a great deal of good in this bill. There are a great many parts of this bill where we have worked together, worked well together, ranging from Ebola to the National Institutes of Health, the Native American issues. Those things ought to be enacted. Madam Speaker, in closing, the continuing resolution we are currently operating under is due to expire at midnight tonight. I believe it is important to keep this government open and support this bipartisan, bicameral piece of legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Michigan because he is an exceptionally responsible Member in this body and an heir of a proud tradition in his family and somebody I enjoy working with and I think someone that makes a genuine contribution each and every day he has been here. In terms of the bill itself, there is certainly nothing inappropriate about my friends on the other side of the aisle focusing on things they don't like, but there are some things we ought to think about that we do like. There are billions of dollars in here to fight Ebola, something that we sat down and worked with the administration and our friends on the other side and came to a common agreement. We have disagreement sometimes and a difference of perspective. I am actually closer to Mr. McGovern on this, at least in terms of process, than I am to the administration. Look, ISIL is a clear and present danger to the United States of America. The President has asked for things in here; we have put the things he asked for in here and tried to work with him on that. I don't think anybody in this Chamber thinks that the work done at the National Institutes of Health isn't exceptionally important. There is more money in here for that particular agency in a more difficult budgetary environment than we had last year. I know how very much my friend and his family have always been concerned with Native Americans. Nobody did more than your uncle, our beloved colleague, Mr. Kildee, Dale Kildee, in that area, and there is substantially more money in here than the administration requested for Indian health and for school construction on Indian reservations. There are certainly some things in here that I share some of the concerns that my friends have, both from a process standpoint and an outcome standpoint, but I think you have to make a balance. I think you have to look at the overall bill. I think you have to look at the consequences of not passing the bill and the rule. I think you also have to remember that this is a negotiated agreement with a Democratic Senate. I don't think we should have gotten to this point, and had they done their job in the appropriations process, we would not be at this point; but whenever either body doesn't do their job, you always get down to the end, and this is exactly the sort of thing that you end up with. I don't know how we can avoid that in the next 24 hours, but I do know this: I hope we all from both sides of the aisle recommit ourselves to avoid being here next year. I don't blame my friends on the Democratic side for getting us here. I don't think they had anything to do with it. They worked with us in the appropriations process in very good faith with Mrs. Lowey. That is why we brought bills to the floor. That didn't happen in the Senate, and that is what has gotten us here. I think we should reserve our fire for the other Chamber, one thing that tends to unite us instead of divide us because that is where the problem has been. Madam Speaker, again, under new management next year, I hope we won't see this problem. With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida for yielding. I want to talk a little bit about the legislation and then the rule itself. It is not unusual that we are at a difficult moment near the end of the session and have must-pass legislation. And the main portion of this legislation, the National Defense Authorization Act, is actually very good and very bipartisan. Frankly, it was passed out of committee with overwhelming votes from both sides of the aisle. We all know that the chairman and the ranking member, who are two of our most distinguished Members, work very well together. Like anything in a $500 billion bill, I could quibble with this or that, but the reality is I favor the legislation. I have no problem supporting it and the rule that moves it forward. I also want to agree with my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern). I have the same concerns he does about the authorization for military action. I jointly signed a letter with him to that effect. I look forward to continuing to work with him to that effect because he is precisely right that we need to address this. I think the appropriate way is a full authorization debate, not an amendment, but my friend certainly states his case eloquently. We also have a major lands bill appropriated with this. Most of that bill is really pretty noncontroversial. Most of it went through committee or a lot of it across the floor. There are a lot of good things in there and things that I find very easy to support. There is a particular portion, however, that I do oppose, and that is section 3003, as I recall. But it is basically a copper mining issue in southeast Arizona, where we have two Indian tribes that have sacred sites in this area, on what is now Federal land, and they have opposed this legislation. Now, this legislation was debated on this floor in stand-alone legislation and was then pulled because the votes were not here to pass the legislation. So we are passing, by rule, a bill that the majority in this House did not support. Fortunately, the bill is somewhat different. There are a couple of things that have been added: a consultation with the tribes in question, a stronger environmental review. Whether this is window dressing or sincere is hard to know. But I am going to urge the tribes in question to use the consultation fully and aggressively, and I am going to urge the Federal agencies that are responsible for the environmental considerations here to be extraordinarily aggressive in their oversight. We do have a trust responsibility when it comes to sacred sites on Federal lands--or non- Federal lands, for that matter. We have a governmental responsibility. This is a bill, remember, that did not make it across this floor, and it has never been considered by the United States Senate on the floor. Frankly, if that bill couldn't make it across this House, I very seriously doubt it would have made it across the floor in the Senate. So we really have the rules in the sense, I think, thwarting the majority opinion inside the Congress, and that is unfortunate. However, speaking personally, when you serve as a member of the majority on the Rules Committee--and I was given extraordinary latitude last night to try to change this rule in a way that would have stripped this particular provision and did vote against the rule in committee-- when you are given that responsibility, once the committee makes its decision, you also have a responsibility to accept the decision that has been made. I also have the great privilege, on my side of the aisle, of serving as a deputy whip, and that usually requires that you support the rule, that you support your party, which is pretty routine on procedural matters on both sides of the aisle. In 12 years, I have never voted against a rule that my own party put on the floor, even if I had disagreements with it. And I do have disagreements; but in the end, I will support the rule, with reservations. I hope that the provisions that are in the law--to be fair to the authors that have been added since that legislation--will give us some avenues, but I think we ought to reflect long and hard over using this kind of procedural mechanism in this way. On our side of the aisle, we would like to think we are going to be a different kind of Congress and have been a different kind of Congress, and we can always play the back-and-forth. We have got plenty of gotchas for the other side in terms of how they used rules when they were in the majority. But if we are going to do things differently, it needs to start someplace. So I wanted to come down here and highlight this as, I think, a mistake but make it clear, at the end of the day, I support the rule that the committee arrived at. I will be looking forward to working with my friend from Massachusetts on his particular concerns about authorization. I will be looking forward and really watching this issue in Arizona with a great deal of concern, and I will continue to push aggressively that we change the manner in which we operate.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. I rise to support the Native American Housing Assistance and Self- Determined Reauthorization Act of 2014. I want to begin by thanking my friend Mr. Pearce. Nobody has worked harder on this legislation and, frankly, cared more and done more to make sure that a part of our population that historically has not done well, to say the least, has the opportunity to not only receive some benefits that are appropriately and rightfully theirs, but to take more control over their own destiny and their own housing. I think this legislation does just that. I want to thank Members on both sides of the aisle. I see my good friend from Wisconsin over there who, we worked together on VAWA. I know what her commitment is on Native American issues, and I appreciate that very, very much. This legislation provides Native American tribes with much greater efficiencies when deploying NAHASDA funding. We all know government, however well intentioned, quite often is a pretty clumsy and pretty bureaucratic instrument. Consolidating the environmental review requirements, requiring the HUD Secretary to study and recommend to Congress standards to streamline the construction of Indian housing, recommendations for HUD to establish alternative reporting requirements for tribes, these are all good things that will speed the development of housing and allow tribes to deploy their funds more efficiently. There is also legislation in here to deal with taxpayer protections and tribal accountability to make sure the HUD Secretary has the authority to recoup unexpended funds that are held for too long; it strengthens tribal flexibility and sovereignty; and, finally, it allows tribes to pursue alternative funding sources by encouraging private investment, something that is desperately needed. I know, and happened to come in the last part of the debate, there was some discussion about the Cherokee Freedmen issue. That is an issue I know a fair amount about since the tribe is located in my home State of Oklahoma. I want to agree with Ms. Moore that we do have a chief, Chief Baker, who is extremely concerned about this issue and is trying to work it through. The bill itself, the language, is really just an update from what we did in 2008. We are trying to allow the courts and the tribe to solve the issue. I think they genuinely have made progress that the people here that have had legitimate concerns about this issue can be proud of. I think they will continue to do that. But there is no substantive change in what my friend Mr. Pearce has brought forward and what existing law was in this area. I just want to end once more by thanking my friend Mr. Pearce. Frankly, this bill would not have been on this floor without his diligent work. I certainly want to thank Mr. Hensarling for working with my friend Mr. Pearce, and I want to thank my friends on the other side of the aisle who also have focused a great deal of attention and concern on this issue to try and make sure that the first Americans aren't the last Americans in almost every category. So, again, I thank my friends, and I look forward to the passage of this legislation.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, during this past recess, on October 29th, the Turkish people celebrated Republic Day, which commemorates the 91st anniversary of the establishment of the Republic of Turkey. On October 29, 1923, the Turkish Parliament proclaimed the new state as a republic, replacing the Ottoman Constitution. Turkish soldiers prevailed in the War of Independence despite being under equipped. Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, who led the Turkish Army became the new country's first President. Turkish women played a crucial role in helping to bring about a new nation. During the war they were often left earning the only income in their households. They also assisted in the war effort by transporting ammunition on their backs, moving cannon balls, and pushing equipment to the battle fields. Since independence, Turkey has made incredible gains and taken its place among the community of nations. Turkey remains an important ally in a turbulent region. Its economic vibrancy has catapulted the country to become the 6th-largest economy in Europe and the 16th in the world. Turkey has prevailed because of its roots as a republic and its place as one of the few democracies in the region. This political stability along with a strong cultural connection has led to Turkish investment in Native American enterprises. Turkish businesses have sought to share their experience and expertise with Native Americans. There have been several Native American delegations to Turkey, and Turkish businesses have visited tribes to discuss ways in which to work together. This relationship between Turks and Native Americans is a shining example of how stable governments help foster collaborative growth. Mr. Speaker, all this is why, on this occasion, I congratulate the people of Turkey on this important anniversary, and look forward to a strong and stable Turkish Republic for many generations to come.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, on May 27, 2014 the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, wherein the Court affirmed the sovereign immunity of our Nation's federally-recognized Indian tribes for off-reservation commercial activities. Because the United States Constitution expressly and exclusively grants to Congress plenary authority over every one of our Nation's 566 federally-recognized Indian tribes, I rise to provide my views on this decision that can have serious ramifications for Indian Country. As the Court's Bay Mills decision correctly observes, our nation's federally recognized Indian tribes are independent governments whose sovereignty pre-dates the United States Constitution. Our founding fathers wisely chose to subject Indian tribes solely to the authority of the United States Congress, to the exclusion of state governments, as well as the Executive and Judicial branches of the federal government. And though Indian tribes are subject to the authority of Congress, they retain all of their inherent and historic sovereign powers, except as those powers may be expressly modified by Congress. If Congress does not act to take away the sovereign powers of Indian tribes, those powers are retained. One of the most important attributes of sovereignty possessed by Indian tribes is sovereign immunity from suit, including suits initiated by State governments. In addition to being consistently affirmed by decisions of our nation's highest court over the past two centuries, tribal sovereign immunity has been repeatedly acknowledged and confirmed in federal case precedent. Thus the Supreme Court correctly upheld the sovereign immunity of the Bay Mills Indian Community, and affirmed the express desire of Congress that Indian tribes retain the fullest extent of their immunity from suit. Like state and federal governments, Indian tribes rely on their inherent sovereign powers, including immunity, to protect their treasuries and further their economies. These sovereign powers are vital for any government to provide essential programs and services for its citizens and are critical in maintaining the viability of our nation's Indian tribes, many of which are located in the most economically depressed regions of the country and have been under constant duress due to severe cutbacks in federal funding over the past several decades. For Indian tribes, sovereign immunity is necessary not only to protect the Tribes from private litigants, but also to prevent state governments from overstepping their constitutional authority and diminishing the rights and sovereignty of Indian tribes through litigation. As the Supreme Court acknowledged in the Bay Mills Indian Community decision, only Congress has the authority to diminish the sovereign rights of Indian tribes. While I applaud the Supreme Court's decision affirming Tribal sovereign immunity, I am deeply disturbed by dicta in the Court's majority opinion that is not only at odds with the Constitution and prior Supreme Court precedent, but is an affront to tribal sovereignty. In its majority opinion, the Court suggests that a state may bring a suit for prospective injunctive relief against tribal officials for alleged violations of state law based on the doctrine of Ex Parte Young. Prior Supreme Court precedent, however, has made clear that the doctrine of Ex Parte Young only permits suit for prospective injunctive relief against government officials for alleged violations of federal law, not for alleged violations of state law. The basis for authorizing such suits against government officials is that federal law is supreme to state and tribal law, and thus states and tribes cannot officially authorize their officials to violate federal law. However, state law is not supreme to tribal law under the United States Constitution. The Court's suggestion that tribal officials acting in their official capacity are subject to suit for alleged violations of state law is not only in clear conflict with prior Supreme Court precedent, but permitting such suits would eviscerate tribal sovereign immunity by giving states the ability to do indirectly what our Constitution has prohibited from them doing directly: exercising jurisdiction and authority over Indian tribal governments through litigation. Furthermore, it will undoubtedly expose tribal officials to individual liability and aggravation if they are named in baseless Ex Parte Young suits. Perhaps worse, the Supreme Court's Bay Mills decision includes dicta suggesting that, if civil remedies against Indian tribes and their officials ``prove[] inadequate,'' a state may bring criminal charges against tribal officials acting in their official capacity for alleged violations of state law. This also would enable states to trump the sovereign rights of Indian tribes by criminalizing what would otherwise be civil, government-to-government disputes between states and Indian tribes. Such action would violate the United States Constitution and the sovereign rights of Indian tribes that the Constitution guarantees. Again, the Constitution withholds from States the authority to exercise jurisdiction and power over Indian tribes, and grants that power solely to Congress. The Supreme Court does not have the power to usurp Congress' Constitutionally granted plenary power over Indian affairs by granting States the right to criminalize the exercise of tribal sovereignty where Congress has not seen fit to do so. And again, it will be tribal officials acting in their official capacity that could be exposed to potential criminal liability for doing the very same thing that all of us who are here as elected officials are trying to do--be good civil servants. Therefore, I urge our federal and state judiciaries to treat the above-referenced dicta (and erroneous dicta at that) in the Bay Mills decision as just that: non-binding dicta, and to instead uphold the United States Constitution by deferring to Congress on all issues involving tribal-state conflicts. Where Congress has not expressly chosen to subject Indian tribes to state jurisdiction or authority, the states cannot usurp Congress' plenary and exclusive authority over Indian tribes by bringing suits or criminal charges against tribal officials for alleged violations of state law as a means of exercising control over sovereign Indian tribes.

Mr. COLE

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is not surprising I am going to disagree with my friend about who has and who hasn't done their job and who has been open and who hasn't been open in terms of how they have operated on the floor. The reality is this House majority has repeatedly brought appropriations bills to the floor and moved them across the floor. Unfortunately, our counterparts and the Democratic majority in the Senate have not been able to do that for whatever reason. It's a little hard to have an appropriations process when the United States Senate will not bring a single appropriations bill to the floor largely because the majority on that side is evidently afraid of voting on any sort of amendments to an appropriations bill. Now, if you actually look at the record in terms of who has been open and who hasn't, I remind my friends that the Democrats' 2006 manifesto, ``A New Direction for America,'' states: Bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full, and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute. The fact remains that when Democrats took control of the House they did just the opposite. Throughout the 111th Congress, in the final 2 years of Representative Pelosi's time as Speaker, the House never considered a single bill under an open rule. That is the definition of a closed process. On the contrary, under Republican control, the House has returned to consideration of appropriation bills under an open process, with 22 open rules. This year alone, the House has considered 404 amendments during the appropriations process, 189 of which were offered by our Democratic colleagues. Contrast that to the United States Senate, where that process has not happened at all. When you compare the record of the Republican majority to the most recent Democratic majority, any fair analysis will show Republicans are running a much more open, transparent House of Representatives. Let me also, if I may, Mr. Speaker, turn to the issue of the Benghazi Select Committee. I know that has caused considerable concern, I think, largely based on misunderstanding. Clause 2(g)(1) of rule XI, which applies to all standing committees and the select committees, mandates that the meetings of the select committee be open to the public, including the press, unless there is a vote conducted in open session to close such a meeting. The rule today only ensures that the logistics for media covering the hearing follow the standing rules of the House. There is no change to the rules governing public access to the meetings of the select committee. Might I, just for the Record, Mr. Speaker, actually read the relevant portion of the rules here--``(7) The provisions of paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(12) of clause 4 of Rule XI shall be considered to be written rules adopted by the select committee as though pursuant to such clause''--essentially applying to the select committee our own rules. That is the only thing that is being done here. It is a technical amendment, certainly no effort to short-circuit the process or make it less transparent. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. COLE. In reclaiming my time, if I may, I don't presume to speak for the Speaker. I know that we have this vote largely because the Speaker wanted to make sure that we had a vote, and I know the request that he made of the President. Look, I am not condemning the President on this either. I understand all Executives try to tell you they have the authority to do everything they want. Ours do when we have a Republican, and Democrats do. All I can say is, at the end of the day, I think we have a robust debate, and we have an opportunity to register opinion. But I want to continue to work with my friend and make sure that we have precisely the kind of debate and discussion and vote that his own amendment in July actually envisioned, because I think my friend is correct. I think this is an issue of constitutional propriety, and I think it is an issue, ultimately, of war and peace, and I think we ought to all vote on it. I would be happy if we did it before the election, but I will work with my friend to make sure that we do it as quickly as possible. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. COLE. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 722 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), my good friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration of H.J. Res. 124, the Continuing Appropriations Resolution for fiscal year 2015. The rule is a structured rule which provides for the consideration of a short-term continuing resolution keeping the government funded until December 11, 2014. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations. In addition, Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for the adoption of a technical amendment by Chairman Rogers and makes in order an amendment by Chairman McKeon. That amendment provides the authority for the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, to train and equip appropriately vetted elements of the Syrian opposition and other appropriately vetted Syrian groups or individuals. For this amendment, the rule provides 6 hours of debate equally divided between Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith. The rule also provides for one motion to recommit. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule corrects a technical error and puts in place the base rules of the House regarding media access to the hearings and meetings of the Benghazi Select Committee. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my friend Chairman Rogers for bringing a bill to avoid a government shutdown to the House. As a member of the Appropriations Committee, it is frustrating that we are forced into acting on a short-term continuing resolution when we spent much of this year, both in committee and on the floor, updating congressional funding priorities for fiscal year 2015. This House has done its work. I wish I could say the same for the other body. While the Senate has chosen not to pass even one appropriations bill on the floor, this House has passed seven. While the Senate Appropriations Committee has passed eight of the 12 appropriations bills out of committee, the House Appropriations Committee has approved all but one. If the Senate would work with us, I believe we could pass all of our bills on time. The CR we are considering today is a clean bill continuing the funding of government operations at last year's levels. It includes only 36 so-called anomalies all within the total level of funding. These changes are necessary to address current immediate needs like addressing the Ebola crisis, funding programs to counter regional aggression toward Ukraine and other former Soviet Union countries, and funding to ensure appropriate treatment of veterans and continued oversight of the VA. In addition, Mr. Speaker, this bill extends the Export-Import Bank through June 30, 2015. I know some of my friends will disagree with me; however, I believe the Export-Import Bank provides a vital service. In an era when foreign governments are directly subsidizing industries, our companies are in need of a level playing field. I believe the Export-Import Bank does that. In my home State of Oklahoma, since 2007, financing provided by the Export-Import Bank has supported over $1.1 billion in sales by U.S. companies that would not have existed otherwise; in addition, the Export-Import Bank has returned over $2.6 billion to the United States Treasury since 2008. Finally, and most significantly, the McKeon amendment would provide the President with the authority he has requested to train and equip appropriately vetted elements of the Syrian opposition. The amendment ensures congressional oversight by requiring detailed progress reports on a plan, a vetting process, and procedures for monitoring unauthorized end use of provided training and equipment. It would also require the President to report on how this authority fits within a larger regional strategy. Mr. Speaker, when we look back on what brought us to this point, there are at least three significant failures that we can point to: first, former Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki was given the opportunity to create a multiethnic, multisectarian, inclusive State of Iraq, but, instead, he squandered it; secondly, President Obama didn't insist forcefully enough to keep a residual American presence in Iraq; and, third, Mr. Speaker, when ISIL expanded out of Syria and into Iraq, both Prime Minister al-Maliki and President Obama were slow to respond. When Ramadi and Fallujah fell to ISIL, their indecisive leadership allowed and encouraged this terrorist organization to assert itself in the Middle East. Mr. Speaker, the salient discussion is not about the past and how we got here but about the future and what we must do now. I agree with the President that ISIL represents a clear and present danger that must be dealt with, confronted, and destroyed. I am willing to give the President the authority and the funds needed to accomplish this mission. This amendment gives the President what he has requested while maintaining an appropriate role for Congress, but I do disagree with the President on several important issues. I don't believe that he has the inherent authority to use military force in Syria, and nothing in this amendment authorizes him to do so. I believe that going to war on the authorizations that were passed in 2001 and 2002, which dealt with very different times, places, and peoples, is shaky, at best. In fact, Mr. Speaker, a vast majority of my colleagues, including myself, were not even here in Congress when those authorizations were approved. When we return in November, I hope that we repeal the 2001 and 2002 authorizations and replace them with ones that reflect the views of this Congress not the Congress of the last decade. Additionally, I disagree with the President's choice of tactics. Regardless of whether he intends to use them or not, I believe the President was far too quick to rule out options and tools that he, in fact, may need later. War is the most unpredictable of all human enterprises. History shows that it is vital for a commander to maintain as much flexibility as possible. I also do not believe that the authority and resources the President has requested will be nearly enough to achieve the mission he has outlined. It is going to take far more from our country, our allies, and our friends on the ground to destroy ISIL than envisioned in this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I don't believe the President can succeed in the effort to destroy ISIL without bipartisan, popular support, and I hope he will take this opportunity to build on that. We are not Republicans or Democrats in war, but Americans first. The Commander in Chief has asked for our support in the underlying legislation. He should get it. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.